本文選題：量刑規(guī)范化 + 借鑒　； 參考：《吉林大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國的量刑規(guī)范化改革在近些年逐漸成為人們關注的焦點。量刑規(guī)范化具有重要的法律意義和社會意義，其不僅關系到公民自身權益，同時也無時無刻不在體現(xiàn)著司法的公正以維護社會的穩(wěn)定。量刑規(guī)范化的改革也是世界各國所共同關注的問題，無論是英美法系還是大陸法系的國家都在積極致力于減少量刑偏差以達到量刑均衡。應當說，我國的量刑規(guī)范化改革起步較晚，“在上個世紀90年代左右，國內(nèi)少部分地區(qū)檢察院才開始了量刑建議制度的探索。其后，于2009年6月，在由最高人民法院制定的《人民法院量刑指導意見（試行）》以及《人民法院量刑程序指導意見（試行）》中已經(jīng)有所規(guī)定，正式在全國試行是在2010年10月1日�！�1本文將量刑規(guī)范化的改革作為選題，力圖著重研究我國目前量刑規(guī)范化改革的得與失，而且著重介紹英美法系和大陸法系典型國家在量刑規(guī)范化方面的探索和成功經(jīng)驗，以期對我國的司法改革提供幫助。 本文共分為四章，第一章為量刑規(guī)范化概說。首先對量刑規(guī)范化的概念進行了介紹和分析。其次，量刑規(guī)范化的意義與內(nèi)涵也在本章中有所涉及。我國近期推行的量刑規(guī)范化改革應當說是備受關注，分析量刑規(guī)范化改革的相關內(nèi)容就必須對有關量刑規(guī)范化的基礎概念與價值進行闡釋。 第二章為我國量刑規(guī)范化改革所面臨的缺陷。大力推行量刑規(guī)范化改革本身是值得肯定的，不過就目前而言，我國的量刑規(guī)范化改革還有諸多實體上、程序上以及價值上的缺陷。上述缺陷會制約改革的進程。 第三章主要是英美法系和大陸法系典型國家在量刑規(guī)范化改革方面現(xiàn)狀與成果方面的介紹。美國量刑規(guī)范化主要特色在于《量刑指南》的頒布具有指導意義，，另外完全獨立的量刑程序為法官的量刑活動提供很好的平臺。德國量刑規(guī)范化就是典型大陸法系的定罪與量刑集于一體的審理模式，這種模式有優(yōu)勢，但也存在顯著地弊端。兩種法系對量刑規(guī)范化不同的探索，都值得我國量刑規(guī)范化改革加以借鑒。 第四章則是針對我國目前量刑規(guī)范化改革的現(xiàn)狀提出完善方面的若干思考。首先，量刑基準刑的設置要更加合理；建立完善的案例指導制度，這是從實體的角度對完善量刑規(guī)范化改革的思考。而從程序的角度，則應當逐步建立獨立的量刑程序。
[Abstract]:The reform of sentencing standardization in China has gradually become the focus of attention in recent years. Sentencing standardization has important legal and social significance, which not only relates to citizens' own rights and interests, but also reflects the justice of justice in order to maintain social stability all the time. The reform of sentencing standardization is also a common concern of all countries in the world, both Anglo-American law system and civil law system countries are actively committed to reducing sentencing deviation to achieve a balanced sentencing. It should be said that the reform of sentencing standardization in our country started relatively late. "in the 1990s or so, the procuratorate of a small number of regions in China began to explore the sentencing suggestion system. Subsequently, in June 2009, provisions were made in the guidelines on sentencing of the people's Court (for trial implementation) and in the guidance on sentencing procedure of the people's Court (for trial implementation) formulated by the Supreme people's Court. The formal trial in the whole country was carried out on October 1, 2010. "1. This paper chooses the reform of sentencing standardization as the topic, and tries to study the gains and losses of the current reform of sentencing standardization in our country. It also focuses on the exploration and successful experience of the typical countries of Anglo-American law system and continental law system in the standardization of sentencing, in order to provide help for the judicial reform of our country. This article is divided into four chapters, the first chapter is the introduction of sentencing standardization. First of all, the concept of standardization of sentencing is introduced and analyzed. Secondly, the significance and connotation of sentencing standardization are also involved in this chapter. The reform of sentencing standardization carried out recently in our country should be paid more attention to. The basic concept and value of the standardization of sentencing must be explained by analyzing the relevant contents of the reform of sentencing standardization. The second chapter is the defect that our country sentencing standardization reform faces. It is positive to promote the reform of sentencing standardization in itself, but at present, there are many defects in the reform of sentencing standardization in our country, such as substance, procedure and value. These shortcomings will constrain the process of reform. The third chapter mainly introduces the status quo and achievements of the standard reform of sentencing in the typical countries of common law system and civil law system. The main characteristic of sentencing standardization in the United States is that the promulgation of sentencing Guide is of guiding significance, and the completely independent sentencing procedure provides a good platform for the sentencing activities of judges. German sentencing standardization is a typical continental law system of conviction and sentencing in one trial mode, this model has advantages, but also has significant drawbacks. The differences between the two legal systems in sentencing standardization are worthy of reference in the reform of sentencing standardization in China. The fourth chapter puts forward some thoughts on how to perfect the reform of sentencing standardization. First of all, the establishment of sentencing benchmark penalty should be more reasonable; establish a perfect case guidance system, which is from the perspective of the entity to perfect the standardized reform of sentencing thinking. From the point of view of procedure, the independent sentencing procedure should be established step by step.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.13

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 周光權;量刑規(guī)范化:可行性與難題[J];法律適用;2004年04期

2 張勇;;量刑規(guī)范化改革及路徑選擇[J];甘肅政法學院學報;2008年01期

3 劉遠;;量刑原理探究[J];甘肅政法學院學報;2009年05期

4 賈敬華;;司法自由裁量權的現(xiàn)實分析[J];河北法學;2006年04期

5 柳忠衛(wèi);葛進;;量刑基準的存在根據(jù)與形式——兼論法官量刑基準意識的養(yǎng)成[J];河南公安高等�？茖W校學報;2006年05期

6 李潔;王志遠;;公正定罪實現(xiàn)論綱[J];吉林大學社會科學學報;2006年03期

7 李潔;;論量刑規(guī)范化應當緩行——以我國現(xiàn)行刑法立法模式為前提的研究[J];吉林大學社會科學學報;2011年01期

8 賈春梅;商鳳廷;;論檢察院量刑建議的規(guī)范化[J];河北學刊;2013年01期

9 顧永忠;;試論量刑與量刑程序涉及的關系[J];人民檢察;2009年15期

10 徐振華;;量刑平衡機制的理性構建[J];人民司法;2008年03期

本文編號：1968388